The Word of God is not
contained!
Reasonably speaking (if one accepts the notion of a God), the Word of God is that which God says, that which God thinks, that which God wants.
Many conflate “the Bible” with God's Word, because we've used that term as a title for the Bible over the years. But the Bible doesn't call “the Bible” God's Word, nor has God. That's just our tradition.
Which is fine as long as we don't forget that the tradition does not need to be taken literally.
What IS God's Word then? Seems to me that IF one believes in a Good and Gracious God, a God who is defined as Love, then God's Word is ALL that is good and true and pure and loving. As we find in the Bible where the author of Philippians writes...
Reasonably speaking (if one accepts the notion of a God), the Word of God is that which God says, that which God thinks, that which God wants.
Many conflate “the Bible” with God's Word, because we've used that term as a title for the Bible over the years. But the Bible doesn't call “the Bible” God's Word, nor has God. That's just our tradition.
Which is fine as long as we don't forget that the tradition does not need to be taken literally.
What IS God's Word then? Seems to me that IF one believes in a Good and Gracious God, a God who is defined as Love, then God's Word is ALL that is good and true and pure and loving. As we find in the Bible where the author of Philippians writes...
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by
prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard
your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Finally, brothers and sisters,
whatever is true,
whatever is noble,
whatever is right,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable -
Finally, brothers and sisters,
whatever is true,
whatever is noble,
whatever is right,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable -
if anything is excellent or
praiseworthy -
think about such things.
~The Apostle Paul (probably –
Philippians 4)
IF one accepts a Good, Loving God, then
ALL that is good and loving (just, pure, kind, compassionate,
helpful, brave, unwavering, etc) is of God. That which is hateful and
cruel is NOT of God.
And IF all that is good and loving is of God, then it stands to reason that all those words that promote that which is Good and Loving are at least passing on themes of God's Word, God's Will... if not God's Word outright.
In the CS Lewis book in the Narnia series, The Last Battle, the Calormenes are a (crudely drawn) Muslim-like people who worship Tash. This is a clearly false and evil god in the book. One of the Calormene citizens, Emeth, has been a devout follower of Tash all his days. Near the end, he meets Aslan. This is the story of that meeting...
And IF all that is good and loving is of God, then it stands to reason that all those words that promote that which is Good and Loving are at least passing on themes of God's Word, God's Will... if not God's Word outright.
In the CS Lewis book in the Narnia series, The Last Battle, the Calormenes are a (crudely drawn) Muslim-like people who worship Tash. This is a clearly false and evil god in the book. One of the Calormene citizens, Emeth, has been a devout follower of Tash all his days. Near the end, he meets Aslan. This is the story of that meeting...
There came to meet me a great Lion... then I fell at his feet and thought, “Surely this is the hour of death, for the lion will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him...”
But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, “Son thou art welcome.”
But I said, “Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine, but the servant of Tash.”
He answered, “Child, all the service thou has done to Tash I account as service done to me...
no service which is vile can be done to me and
none which is not vile can be done to him.”
Emeth replied, “Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.”
“Beloved,” said the glorious One, “unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly, for all find what they truly seek.”
~CS Lewis
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
Scripture points to Jesus, not the other way around...
the point of Scripture is not to lead us back to Scripture.
The point of Scripture is to lead us to Jesus Christ.
~Rachel Held Evans
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
Take someone who doesn’t keep
score,
who’s not looking to be richer,
or afraid of losing,
who has not the slightest interest
even in his own personality:
he’s free...
Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted
to change the world.
Today I am wise, so I am changing
myself...
Very little grows on jagged rock. Be
ground.
Be crumbled, so wild flowers will come up where you are...
Be crumbled, so wild flowers will come up where you are...
~Rumi
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
You do not have to sit outside in
the dark.
If, however, you want to look at the
stars,
you will find that darkness is
necessary.
But the stars neither require nor demand it...
But the stars neither require nor demand it...
The way we live our days,
is the way we live our lives...
is the way we live our lives...
~Annie Dillard
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
I feel safe in the midst of my
enemies,
for the truth is all powerful and will prevail...
for the truth is all powerful and will prevail...
Life is a hard
battle anyway.
If we laugh and sing a little as we fight the good fight of freedom,
it makes it all go easier.
I will not allow my life's light to be determined by the darkness around me...
If we laugh and sing a little as we fight the good fight of freedom,
it makes it all go easier.
I will not allow my life's light to be determined by the darkness around me...
Religion without humanity is very poor human stuff.
~Sojourner Truth
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
...As soon as the generals and the
politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go.
Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection..
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go.
Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection..
Do unto those downstream as you
would have those upstream do unto you...
Whether we and our politicians know
it or not,
Nature is party to all our deals and
decisions,
and she has more votes,
a longer memory,
and a sterner sense of justice than
we do...
Rats and roaches live by competition
under the laws of supply and demand;
it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy...
it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy...
~Wendell Berry
The Word of God, or so it seems to me.
The wind blows wherever it pleases.
You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.
~Jesus (John 3)
You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.
~Jesus (John 3)
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me
will do the works I have been doing,
and they will do even greater things than
these.
~Jesus (John 14)
Jesus did many other things as well.
~Jesus (John 14)
Jesus did many other things as well.
If every
one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
~John 21
The Word of God, or
so it seems to me.
And the Word of God is not – CAN not be contained.
Thanks be to God.
And the Word of God is not – CAN not be contained.
Thanks be to God.
57 comments:
And once again, you choose to conflate YOUR notions of what constitutes "true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy, with what Paul...and by extension then, God...means when using those words. Certainly, no version I've seen of that passage so much as hints "whatever YOU DECIDE is true..." No. It says, whatever IS true. Thus, one must ascertain what is true by the standards of Paul (and thus by extension, God). This is an important distinction lest we choose to regard sexually immoral behavior as good simply because two people decide to live together.
As to the rest, you'd have to show that any of those people were in no way influenced by Christian teaching to suggest that God is speaking without first doing so through Scripture.
And BTW, despite the clear double-talk, Evans is clearly espousing a Sola Scriptura position by the quote of hers you present.
You are welcome to your opinion.
~Dan
Of course, if you pick and choose which attributes of God’s character to accept and discard the rest, it’s easy to crest an idol in whatever image you choose to. But, if you start with an incomplete view of the nature of God, that just means your conclusions are going to be warped.
It’s probably pointless to point out that you’ve conflated your assumptions about this topic for proven fact.
The key phrase in this entire post is “It seems to me”. It must be nice to live in a word where anything that seems to be the case to one individual, is assumed to be true.
Personally, and I can be self centered, I can’t imagine how it’s possible to elevate one’s self to such a high level of veneration.
”Why do you call me good, there is no one good but God.”
God
“Except me, I’m good.”
Dan.
"I, Craig, am telling God that God COULD NOT mean that figuratively. If God were to suggest that, God would be wrong..."
Craig
Dan
Except that I’m not doing that in the least. It’s possible that God could have meant it figuratively in some way. I’m not excluding or discounting that possibility.
I’m pointing out that your insistence that you know the “reality” of what Jesus was saying despite that specific reality not meshing with the context of the whole passage or with the rest of scripture.
But please keep trying to put your words in God’s mouth.
“In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God and The Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing that has come into being, came into being.”
He just used the word that means “good” when He meant to use the word that means “perfection”.
It’s all perfectly clear now.
Except that I’m not doing that in the least.
Of course you're not! That's the point!!
You're not doing that in the least, NOR AM I.
Holding an opinion about what God likely means about this passage or that passage is NOT telling God what he thinks. It's NOT speaking for God.
It's holding opinions.
YOU hold opinions about the meaning of various texts and things Jesus or God are recorded saying in the Bible.
I hold opinions about the meaning of various texts and things Jesus or God are recorded saying in the Bible.
The only problem is when one crosses a line and thinks that their human interpretation can't be mistaken and that their human opinion of what God said/thinks is the same as what God thinks.
I'm not doing that.
Hopefully you're not, either.
Hopefully you can recognize that.
Had you only chosen not to credit your paraphrase directly to God, and make pronouncements about what the “reality” of Jesus meaning was, I could almost believe you.
Unfortunately I don’t see how you can honestly claim that making pronouncements about “reality” is expressing an opinion. It’s a claim about “reality”, unless reality in now subjective also.
It's absurd to suggest that there can never be a time when it is legitimate, accurate and factual that one is not mistaken about a given point. It's a dodge to absolve he who suggests such a thing from ever having to make a case about anything for or against a position.
I agree. For instance, those who believe in a young earth are simply factually wrong, by all available data. Or those who insist that there are no good people, when clearly, there are genuinely good people in the world, at least based upon normal English usage of the word, Good.
So, you and I appear to agree that there are times when people are factually incorrect in their opinions. So, no dodge.
Dan
Wow, “genuinely good” by Dan’s standards. Vague, inconsistent and mysterious as they may be.
There's not a specific, detailed definition/description of Good, so it almost has to be general, doesn't it? Not sure what's mysterious about that.
But consider some specifics, my wife for instance:
First, there's the obvious: She's never killed anyone, never stolen, doesn't lie (oh, I'm sure there are tiny white lies here and there, but certainly not as a rule and not in a way that causes harm), never harmed a person. Beyond that, she's been a faithful, loving wife and mother raising two wonderful children with an exceeding amount of wit, patience and a deep, undying love. That's just the basics and on that front, she's good, by the normal English definition of the word.
Beyond that, she's worked for 30 years, 40-70 hours a week helping homeless families get off the streets, find homes, get education, get off drugs, find sustainable support, get jobs, become independent. She's done this for veterans, suffering from homelessness and addictions. She's done this work patiently, kindly, effectively, routinely.
Beyond all of that great good work that she's done her entire adult life, she's volunteered in a wide variety of ways. Helping refugees find support, giving money to causes (what little money we have), offering to baby sit for struggling families and adoring those children she's babysat... helped homeless families move in to new housing (as a volunteer, apart from her job), sat and visited with sick and troubled family members...
I could go on and on.
My wife is a good person. Period. And beyond that, she's NOT a bad person (i.e., she hasn't actively done anything bad or harmful towards anyone). There is no sense of the word that one could say, "She is NOT a good person."
And beyond my wife, I could name my pastor and say similar things. I could name five dozen members at my church (basically, my church) for whom I could say similar things.
These are observably Good people, according to the English meaning of that word.
Are you seriously saying that people like this are somehow NOT good?
Please answer that question directly and clearly with some sort of evidence if you're saying that they're not good.
Failing to answer that question means no more comments here.
Dan,
You "agreed" with the complete opposite of what I said.
Worse, you make completely false statements. All that you can say truthfully is those who believe in a young earth are wrong if those old earth proponents are correct in how they interpret all available data they use for the purpose.
Also, those who agree with Jesus when He said to the rich young man that no one is good but God are only wrong if Jesus was.
Moreover, I was not even referring to those who can or might be wrong in their opinions.
No one is suggesting that people don’t do good things, I have no problem agreeing that many people engage in behavior that has the appearance of being “good”, so if doing things you approve of makes a person “good”, then I agree with your superficial statement.
But, in the case of the rich ruler, let’s remember what his question was and what he wanted from Jesus.
Surely you’re not suggesting that merely doing “good” is enough to “inherit eternal life”.
To be clear, when I’m talking about “being good”, I’m referring to the ontological state of humanity. I’m not referring to the appearance of “good” that comes from “good” deeds.
Not that I would suggest that it’s wrong to do things that are “good”, I’m simply saying that external actions don’t always get done for “good” reasons.
But, your right if that’s all it takes to be considered ontologically “good” in your eyes.
What I'm telling you, Craig, is that these people ARE good, not that they merely do good things. They are kind, helpful, loving, justice-seeking, truth-telling genuinely good at heart people. Are you suggesting that somehow you know otherwise?
Please answer.
Dan
I can be self centered, I can’t imagine how it’s possible to elevate one’s self to such a high level of veneration.
So self-centered that you don't care about anyone else, or just mildly self-centered? Do you cause harm to others in your selfishness?
Do you recognize that you could be slightly self-centered and still, all in all, a good person?
Being Good does not mean that you're perfect. There's another word for that... Perfect.
Good defined:
What do we really mean when we use these simplistic terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil’?
‘Good’ means a lack of self-centeredness. It means the ability to empathize with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of others’. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause - all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy. It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them.
All of the ‘saintly’ people in human history have these qualities in abundance. Think of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, risking their own safety and well-being for the goal of gaining equal rights and freedom for Indians and African Americans. These were human beings with an exceptional degree of empathy and compassion, which overrode any concern for their own ambitions or well-being.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
Good defined by the people at biblestudytools.com...
The goodness God's people exhibit shows itself in various moral qualities, notably kindness;
hesed, translated "goodness" or "kindness, " serves as one of the major synonyms of tob, "good, " in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament many words describe the specific characteristics and behaviors of good people, including
"just/justice, "
"righteous/ righteousness, "
"holy/holiness, "
"pure/ purity, "
"gentle/gentleness, " and
"kind/kindness."
If "goodness" is the general term, these other specific terms show what goodness means in daily living.
I don't know what sense/meaning/definition you're assigning to Good to reach a conclusion that some people may DO good, but they AREN'T good... if that's what you're suggesting. It doesn't make any sense, given the meaning/definition of Good in standard usage and in biblical usage.
"What I'm telling you, Craig, is that these people ARE good, not that they merely do good things."
What I'm telling you is that good by human standards is not the same as good by God's standards, or in comparison to God. This is what Jesus meant when he objected to being called "good" by the rich dude. You suggested "perfection" is what Christ meant, but for that to make sense it would have to be in relation to perfect adherence to the Law, which isn't possible, but would be required in order to truly be "good". (I don't recall how this story fit in the chronology of Christ's time on earth, but I'm certain His deity wasn't widely known, understood or believed by the general public. Thus, despite being without sin, I don't think he played the "sinless card", either and so here, He's dealing with most people as if He is totally human, too. Thus, "why do you call me 'good'? Only God is good.")
"Being Good does not mean that you're perfect. There's another word for that... Perfect."
But Christ didn't use that word. He used "good". You just destroyed your own argument.
"Good" is obedience to God. All those words you listed from your links describe how obedience to God looks. They are manifestations of obedience to God. But atheists and anti-religious people can show those same qualities and yet, I don't think God counts them as "good" in the sense that we might.
So, what you're saying (I'm asking) is that, IN YOUR OPINION, when Jesus said "there is none who are good..." he meant (again, IN YOUR OPINION) that he was saying, in effect, "Look, I know by normal standards, you may be a good person who generally does right and avoids wrong, but there is a DIFFERENT Good than that... a Higher Good... that is defined as Obedience To God... PERFECT Obedience to God, in every way... and the ONLY THING that God counts as "good" is this Perfect Obedience..."
Is that what you're guessing, in your human opinion, is the point that Jesus was making? (Or, are you saying that, as a point of fact, you know as a fact that this is literally what Jesus was saying, that it's not your opinion, but you've perfectly interpreted the intent of Jesus' heart when he said that...?)
Because, of course, he didn't say that... you are reading that (or something) into what Jesus said.
What I think the text is saying, in MY opinion, is that we have this man who has an addiction, a dependence upon his wealth and perhaps his own prideful goodness and he is going to Jesus to be affirmed in his own goodness... and Jesus is trying to help him see that he is not perfect, that he has this Huge Thing that is between him and God, and it's his wealth... that indeed, his wealth is more important to him than God or Good.
The point being then, it seems to me, that Jesus was NOT telling him, "There are no good people..." but rather, "your love of your wealth is separating you from God and humanity and Good... give up that which is weighing you down..."
That, to me, is the point of this story, and NOT that there are no good people, period. Because, again, that would need some new definition of Good that Jesus does not give and is not part of the point of this story.
And jumping back to an earlier attempted criticism by Craig...
The key phrase in this entire post is “It seems to me”.
Yes, it DOES seem to me to be the case. That is my best guess at an interpretation.
On the other hand, it DOES seem to Craig and Marshall that some other interpretation makes more sense.
"It seems to me" is NOT some arrogant attempt to define reality. It is an humble admission that I'm telling you MY opinion and I'm not presuming to say, "THIS is what Jesus was thinking when he said it..." and recognizing that humble reality that I am not able to perfectly speak for God is a vital part of what it means to be good and a follower and a seeker of God and Good.
Dan,
I know this subtly eludes you sometimes, so I’ll try to explain.
If YOU make a claim about something (“These ARE good people”), then the onus is on YOU to prove your claim. It’s not on me to prove you wrong.
Now, the fact that you can’t actually prove your claim is also your problem, not mine.
No, Craig, IF YOU want to make a charge that people you don't even know but who have done NO serious crimes or harmful behavior but who HAVE led exemplary lives of public service, helping dozens or hundreds or even thousands of people by their kind, good, just actions to be helpful loving people... if YOU want to charge that they are somehow NOT GOOD (and that is the question here), then the onus is on you to support the charge.
I'm noting the observable reality is that these people ARE GOOD, have good character, behave in good ways, ARE GOOD by the normal understanding of good. I have NO DATA on which to conclude anything other than they are good people. That IS proof. What do YOU NEED as proof to demonstrate their goodness beyond what I've provided, because normal people would recognize this as Good, as English speakers understand the term good, as it is defined in the dictionary.
Or put another way, who says I can't prove it? Who says that what I've offered is NOT proof?
ON WHAT BASIS WOULD YOU OR ANYONE suggest that they are NOT good?
That's the question that is on you.
Please answer that question or go away. Last chance.
Your other comments that do not answer the question that is hanging over you have been deleted. I assume they're still in my email and, if they are, and IF you answer the question(s) hanging over your head, then I will restore the comments you made and deal with those false claims/bad understandings of my position.
Craig said, in a deleted comment (deleted because he's dodging a reasonable question put to him...
You’ve made a claim you can’t prove and you’re going to delete my comments to protect your fragile ego.
No, what I've done is ASK YOU A QUESTION. Here, here it is again...
I noted the observable reality of the good lives and character of a few dozen people (just by way of a starting point) then said...
These are observably Good people, according to the English meaning of that word.
Are you seriously saying that people like this are somehow NOT good?
I've made a claim supported by data and the normal English understanding of the word Good. Then I asked you a question.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT, IN YOUR MIND, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GOOD?
Or, putting it another way, I've said, "Here are people who by all appearances, ARE good people... that is, they're not merely doing good things, but they live good lives, have good intentions and good hearts... do you have some reason that you think that they are NOT good?
When I asked you that earlier, you SEEMED to retreat to saying that doing good things is not the same as BEING good. Your words...
No one is suggesting that people don’t do good things, I have no problem agreeing that many people
engage in behavior that has the appearance of being “good”,
so if doing things you approve of makes a person “good”, then I agree with your
superficial statement.
You said "The APPEARANCE of being [scare quote] 'good...'" As if to suggest that doing good is not the same as being good, and that these people may only APPEAR to be good. You went on to call the measure of seeing people apparently living good lives to be a "superficial" judge of whether a person is truly good.
So, YOU APPEAR to be implying/simply are saying that merely doing good is not the same as being good. That this is a superficial measure.
I'm asking you what rational basis would we have for watching a life, seeing good works coming from, by all appearances, good intentions and saying... "BUT, they're not actually good!"
Or are you agreeing with me that there ARE indeed, good people in the world?
And just before you go down this path... yes, of course, there COULD be some people who are greedy, mean-spirited, "bad" people who do good things for ulterior motives... to make themselves appear good, to set up a scam, to position one's self for some windfall, etc. I'm saying that, in the lives of my wife and other people I know intimately, that we're not talking about that. We're talking about good people doing good things with a heart of love and concern, from a place of loving, good intentions.
Put yet another way, you said...
You’ve made a claim you can’t prove
What I've done is said that, here are some people, doing good things, with good intentions, for good, noble, loving purposes...
IS THERE SOME REASON we ought not consider them Good?
The question, then, is what does it TAKE to "prove" that they're good or not, by your measure? The PROOF is the question.
You APPEAR to be taking the fundamentalist calvinist position that all people everywhere are utterly depraved, "bad," evil, corrupt people. That even our best deeds are like filthy rags.
I'm asking on what basis would we make the judgment that someone is, indeed, utterly depraved, GIVEN the observable evidence of people actually living good, beautiful, loving lives?
You APPEAR to continue to keep withdrawing to "We know it because there are lines in the Bible that say things like 'no one is good...'" But the question is, On what basis would we take those lines as literal reality, as opposed to figurative hyperbole? You can't drop back to "Well, because there are MANY lines in the Bible that use that sort of language..." because the question would remain, "On what basis do we take them literally?"
Merely wanting to take them literally, merely having a tradition of taking them literally, is not especially compelling, given the observable reality of, by all appearances, Good People.
The one comment from Craig that was closest to an answer was this...
I’d suggest that on the basis of the common theme throughout scripture that, as Jesus clearly stated “No one is good except God”, that ontologically we as fallen, sinful, human nature is not “good”.
Which is why I asked/noted in my previous comment that he appears to be appealing to lines in the Bible as "data..." which begged the question, "But were those lines intended to be/should they be taken as LITERALLY intending to say that there are no good people, anywhere, ever, in any sense? Or should they be considered figurative and/or hyperbolic, in intent?"
If some human thinks that they should be taken literally, then, given the observable reality of, by all appearances, Good People, how is Good being defined by these (let's call them) Calvinists?
If the question is, "Should these lines be considered literally," then it's begging the question to cite the lines themselves as reasons to take them literally.
I’m saying once more that ontologically humans are corrupted by sin and therefore not ontologically good.
This is now the second time I’ve answered your question, I understand that you don’t like my answer. That you mistakenly believe that my answer is a personal attack on people you know. I understand that you don’t agree with my answer.
But to keep insisting that it’s not an answer, is simply falsehood. To keep demanding that I answer more questions, when I’ve answered the one you demanded I answer is simply one more example of your inconsistent standards being applied inconsistently.
If THE QUESTION is “Should those lines be taken literally”, the answer (in the absence of some compelling reason otherwise) is yes.
But it seems like THE QUESTION really should be, “How many times can there be one THE QUESTION?”.
Because at some point multiples lose their singularity.
So, you see Craig, the DIRECT answer to some of my questions would be like this (numbered here for discussion purposes):
I. Craig, are you saying that you are NOT Good?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
II. Craig, are you saying that my wife is NOT Good... that my pastor and all these people for whom I can attest are observably good people... that these people are NOT good?
Yes, I can say that I THINK that these people (people I don't even know) are NOT GOOD. Now, before that sounds too harsh, let me be clear that I don't think ANY people, anywhere, ever have been Good people.
III. But, these are people who have dedicated their lives to good service, service to others, unselfishly helping, encouraging, supporting people - especially people in need - for the simple reason of being helpful to a fellow human being, because being helpful is Good, to them... because the Golden Rule... for whatever selfless reason, these are honest, hardworking, decent people who have lived their lives in such a way as to be a servant, helper and mentor to other people. Observably so. So, in what possible sense are they NOT Good?
Good question. Precisely the RIGHT question! Let me clarify: I'm not speaking of Good, as it is normally defined in English. I'm not talking about Good, as it was translated from Greek to English in the Bible. I'm speaking of Ontological Goodness. These people, you, me, NO ONE is Ontologically Good...
And before you ask, let me explain what I mean by Ontologically Good...
[EXPLAIN.]
That, Craig, is direct and clear answers to the questions being asked (IF I'm understanding you correctly. YOU TELL ME). I hope that helps you in the future.
But beyond that, I hope that helps you see where the Question is still wholly Unanswered.
You appear to be saying that NO HUMAN EVER has been Good, but not "normal English Good," but this Other Good. But you are not explaining what you mean by Ontologically Good, so you're not really answering the question that was asked of you. Not yet, anyway. Not in any real sense.
But I'll let your comment remain in order to give you a chance to finally answer it. Maybe you thought that what you said was clear. It's not.
And, by the way,
1. It's NOT that I don't like your answer. It's that you have not answered the question. Not directly. Not clearly.
2. It's NOT that I believe your non-answer is an attack on anyone. It's that you have not answered the question.
Now, answer the question or move on. Please.
If THE QUESTION is “Should those lines be taken literally”, the answer (in the absence of some compelling reason otherwise) is yes.
Says who?
It might be one thing IF there was anyone arguing that EVERY LINE in the Bible SHOULD BE TAKEN WOODENLY LITERAL.
No one is arguing that. Everyone agrees that the Bible contains figurative language, poetic language, hyperbole, parables, stories with varying degrees of literality... and so, EVERY LINE must be identified as literal or figurative.
Beyond that, "in the absence of some compelling reason..."? IF a line says that no one is Good, AND YET, we can see that there ARE good people in the world, that is a compelling reason not to take that line literally.
Understand?
Now, before you drop back to "But everyone is NOT Good. No one is good. The Bible says so..." That's begging the question. A logical error. FIRST you have to demonstrate that everyone is NOT Good or that the Bible MEANT for that line to be taken literally. You have not done that yet. That the line exists is NOT proof that it should be taken literally.
The line "The four corners of the earth" is in the Bible, but you don't take it literally. The line, "Do not store up treasures for yourself here on earth" is in the Bible, but you don't take it literally. The mere presence is not an argument for taking it literally.
Hope that helps.
I don't see why you're having such trouble with this verse, Dan. To some extent, we're saying the same thing, but you still can't let go of this fear that to acknowledge what Christ is saying is somehow and indictment on those you know personally. There are plenty of instances where Christ refers to people as being good, but that doesn't make Him inconsistent in saying that there are none who are good but God. No one is intrinsically good as God is good. To make a distinction between God being good versus any given human being good is an important point for all humans to understand, especially as it leads to His sacrifice that makes us worthy to be in God's presence. But if God is the standard for goodness...and He most definitely is...then all else have fallen short. I'm pretty sure this is a Christian teaching, is it not? And as it is, that simply means that despite our own opinions on who is or isn't good among us, the reality is still that only God is good.
So yeah...all those people you count as good, including your wife, are not good compared to God, but only as they compare to way too many other fellow human beings. I have no problem referring to them as good people, either. But I will not pretend that Jesus was being cryptic in this verse that is just so direct and straightforward.
Said another way, if we take God out of the picture, then it is easy to label one person as being good and the next as not based on our own standards of what good and bad are. But once we put God back into the picture, there is just no comparison to the best human being and the goodness of God. God is good. Good as it refers to humans is relative to other humans.
all those people you count as good, including your wife, are not good compared to God,
But, the question is not "Are these people Good, as compared to God?..."
The question is, "Are these people Good, as Good is defined in English and in the Bible?"
The answer to that question is, by all measurable data, Yes, of course.
Which is NOT to say they're as good as a perfect and almighty God... but that'd be a silly comparison.
But they ARE good as Good is defined in English. And not, "yes, they do some good things... but they're not good..."
They are Good as it is defined in English. Good deeds, good motives, good hearts.
Which is not the same as perfect deeds, perfect motives, perfect hearts.
Words matter.
I don't see why you're having such trouble with this verse, Dan.
I don't have a single problem with the verse. I have a problem with the Calvinist interpretation of the verse.
It's a problem because Calvinists need to set up an utterly depraved and evil, wicked humanity to try to justify their bloodthirsty God model of salvation.
It's a problem because this just isn't reality and when one makes an argument that is founded on something less than reality, then one's argument falls down.
It's a problem because words and ideas matter. There IS a distinction between Good and Perfect. Between Good and Almighty and Entirely Holy. We should use precise words and terms to work through ideas to be on more sound footing.
I will not pretend that Jesus was being cryptic in this verse that is just so direct and straightforward.
I agree that Jesus is not being cryptic and I agree that it's just so direct and straightforward... I just disagree with YOU that Jesus appears to have meant this literally, as that is irrational and unbiblical and not in keeping with observable data.
Said another way, by way of analogy, if you're comparing my brother, who is an EXCELLENT guitar player, by any measure, with Jimi Hendrix, for instance, you could reasonably say, "Well, he's no Jimi Hendrix..." but that wouldn't take away from my brother being a good guitar player.
Not being AS incredible as someone else (or some One else) is not to say that the person in question is not incredible.
Words matter.
Your bro v. Hendrix analogy only validates my position as you are clearly comparing two humans...not humans to God.
Your description of Calvinists is reprehensible. They do not misspeak in acknowledging what Scripture clearly states regarding our sin nature. Nor are they "bloodthirsty" to acknowledge Christ's bloody death as being the means by which we are saved.
The question is what did Christ mean when responding to the rich young man. There's no "interpretation" required to discern what was so direct, straightforward and unambiguous. Only God is good. Full stop. The rest of us are only good relative to each other based upon any number of notions regarding what constitutes "good". Relative to God...no. We are not. This isn't the big deal you insist on making it.
And further, you engage in doublespeak when you say that Jesus isn't speaking cryptically and then say I'm wrong to take what He said literally. How else should one take what is said directly and unambiguously?
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, no matter how much I may disagree with your human interpretation.
Good luck.
~Dan
Craig, what you need to do if you want to comment here is BEGIN to defend what you've said.
You've said that ALL people are not good because they are not "ontologically good."
1. You need to define what YOU mean by "ontologically good." I know the meaning of ontological. I have no idea what you mean by "ontologically good." So, to begin to make any sense, you need to define what you mean by that. It's as if you said, "NO people are good because they're not freakin' good..." What does that mean?
2. Beyond that, you need to explain, with some data, why a person is not good unless they're "ontologically good." Says who? On what basis? WHY this OTHER definition of good, beyond the normal English definition?
It's like you were saying, "Only people who can play the entire Handel's Messiah - in DOUBLE TIME - on the upside down, gravity-less piano - WITHOUT using their fingers! - are good..." Why? Says who? Where is this additional definition coming from?
3. You've called using the normal English definition of Good is only a "superficial" understanding of Good, it's only "the appearance of being good..." Do you recognize that this is an unsupported claim? One made up by you (and those who believe in total depravity) without any real justification beyond, "It's what my tradition has taught me..."?
These are the questions you MUST answer if you want to comment here. I'm making this a firm and enforced request because it's the only way to break down your reasoning and get direct answers to reasonable questions.
Answer THESE QUESTIONS or let your silence say it all.
1. Ontology is what people are in their nature. It’s how we’re wired.
2. Humanity is ontologically sinful, it’s our nature. I know you prefer the term “bent to sin”, but it’s how we are. All one has to do is look at the reality of our society to see that sin in the norm.
3. Just because we are not ontologically “good” doesn’t mean that we are incapable of doing “good”. For example, Trump has been awarded by Jesse Jackson (among others) for good things he’s done. Does that fact make him a “good” person? You referenced Mother Theresa earlier, if you’ve read any of her writings you’d notice that she wouldn’t necessarily call herself “good”. Or, have you not ever experienced people doing “good” things with bad motives? What makes them “good”, their actions or their motives?
4. In context, why is the guy asking Jesus about this? He’s asking because he wants “eternal life”. He’s asking what HE can do to earn eternal life. Jesus’ answer is that there is nothing HE can do to inherit “eternal life”.
5. In the context of inheriting “eternal life”, are you really suggesting that the “good” acts these people have done merit “eternal life”? Are you really suggesting that these folks can earn their way to “eternal life”
6. I have no idea, and would be surprised if I can get an answer regarding your views on “eternal life”. But, it’s the context of the passage and it’s clear that the guy believed it was a thing, and Jesus was pointing him to it as well.
7a. Your misunderstanding of Total Depravity isn’t helpful, perhaps you should research it before you automatically dismiss it.
7b. Unless you are capable of infallibly reading and understand the motives behind every act other people do, you can’t authoritatively comment on anything other than what can be observed. If you can demonstrate the actual motives behind people’s actions please do so, at best all you have is assumptions.
8. I’d point to the scriptural support for the actual concept of total depravity, but it would be a waste of my time.
9. Only you could try to spin you deleting multiple comments answering your ONE (really multiple, but you pretend it’s just ONE) questions, into me being silent. Fortunately, I’ve kept the relevant deleted comments to prove what the reality is.
Ultimately it’s interesting that you insist (without proof) that the default position of humanity in general is “good”, yet you spend a lot of time and vitriol ranting about these “good” people who engage in actions that offend you.
Delete away, but know that if you do, it’s one more lie, and I thought “good” people didn’t lie.
This appears to be an attempt, albeit still not as direct as one might hope, to actually answer the questions, so no need to delete.
I had asked you to define what you mean by ontologically good. You sort of side-swiped an answer here...
1. Ontology is what people are in their nature. It’s how we’re wired.
So, we're not "wired" to be good, then? That's your answer... sort of?
And since we're not "wired" to be good, then we are NOT good, even if a person may live an honest and hard-working life of giving, loving, sharing and selfless helpfulness?
In what sense, then, are they not Good?
What does NOT GOOD mean in that scenario? That they might still sin in some ways and be imperfect?
If so, I'd say I'm not asking you if you and these other people are perfect, I'm asking on what basis would you say they're (you're) not Good?
Do you see why this "definition" seems logically lacking in depth and any serious meaning?
2. Even if we have a "sinful nature," or a tendency to sin and be imperfect, why does that of necessity preclude someone from being Good?
I'm trying to help you flesh out your answer so that it is more meaningful. Please answer these questions.
have you not ever experienced people doing “good” things with bad motives? What makes them “good”, their actions or their motives?
I'm not talking about people doing good thing with bad motives. My wife's motives in helping people get housing or to get them in off the streets or to get off their drug addictions is to simply see them living more healthy, helpful lives. There is no ill-intent in her motives, only wishing well for the other person out of basic human decency.
So, what makes that good? Well, obviously, helping hurting people to live more healthy, whole lives is innately good, why wouldn't it be?
It's a rather obvious observable reality. The question then, is on what basis would anyone suggest that she or others like her have ill-motives? There simply is no observable reasons to make that sort of guess. Not that I can see.
While waiting for you to answer these questions, I'll answer some of yours, directly, clearly...
are you really suggesting that the “good” acts these people have done merit “eternal life”? Are you really suggesting that these folks can earn their way to “eternal life”
Nope. Nope.
nless you are capable of infallibly reading and understand the motives behind every act other people do, you can’t authoritatively comment on anything other than what can be observed.
Correct. And having lived with my wife for 33 years now, I have observed a hella lot of good motivations leading to good acts. I've never observed anything to suggest that she's somehow helping the addicted veteran enter the drug rehab program because it makes her rich, or because he's cute or important and she hopes to curry his favor, or ANY thing other than selfless concern for his well-being and a belief that people deserve to be treated decently. Or the same for any of the homeless families or children she's helped in countless ways over the years.
There is no data observable to suggest that she attends funerals (in her role as a chaplain - she wears multiple hats) and comforts grieving families for any reason beyond just to be selflessly helpful.
Now, a great cynic might say she went into social work to get rich, but the reality belies that. She DID find a job where she could get paid (but not much) to help people, but that's just so she can stay alive while doing the good work that she wants to do out of the goodness of her heart. The motivation is selflessly helping those who need help. There simply is no observable data to suggest otherwise. And you would think that after 30 years, I might have observed at least a little something.
Same at church, when she volunteers helping with the homeless or mentally ill in multiple ways (and there, it's not even her job, so you can't argue that she's doing it for pay).
And I'm not singling out my wife because I think she's special, it's just that she's someone I've observed daily for decades and have some good bit of authority on my knowledge of her motivations.
No, given the deep observable goodness of her motives and actions, the question remains to you: On what possible basis would you guess that the many people like her are doing it for bad motives? Is there ANY data to support that hunch?
Ultimately it’s interesting that you insist (without proof) that the default position of humanity in general is “good”,
I have not said that, not exactly. I've said that people are flawed and have a tendency to sin. And many people DO choose to do bad, way too often.
But I'm just noting the observable reality that many people do good and, by all observable data, do good with good motives. I personally know dozens(if not hundreds) of people like that, and probably at least two dozen in cases where I'm pretty intimately close to the people and in a position to know them and their motivations pretty well.
Ultimately it’s interesting that you insist (without proof) that the default position of humanity in general is “good”,
What I've said, to be clear, is that people are a mixed bag. There are observably "bad people" who do bad things with bad motives. There are observably good people who do good things with, by all appearances, good motives. There are all of us who do good things for good reasons sometimes, for less noble reasons sometimes, for even bad reasons sometimes... there are some of us who may even do bad things for good reasons (i.e., bombing a city of civilians hoping to save more lives than are taken).
We are a complex people, observably so. But, in reality, we DO know good people who do good things for good reasons, by all observable data available.
Is it possible that someone like my wife is secretly evil and has some hidden motives for doing good things? I guess. I guess it's possible she's successfully hidden an evil life away from people who are close to her for decades... it's just that it's extremely unlikely and that, given the data, there simply is no strong compelling reason to make that guess.
And even in cases where her motivations are not crystal pure (say, she visits a funeral of a stranger because it IS her job to do so and she's tired and maybe not wanting to do it much, so she sort of "has to" do it... ), even then, she chose the job for pure motives, to help people and be able to afford to do so in a more comprehensive and effective manner than she could if she were just using her spare time volunteering... so even a LESS than pure motive is STILL a good motive.
Ultimately, if you want to call people like this "not good" (or even Bad? Evil? Corrupt?), given the observable data, the onus is on you to support the claim, as it seems rather dubious.
Ultimately if I was calling people bad, I would have said that.
If you can’t understand the distinction between nature and actions, then my answering more questions seems pointless.
Finally, after an entire comment of blather about how well you know your wife, you can’t unequivocally say that you infallibly know her motives (after 33 years of an incredibly close relationship). Yes, you assume they’re always good, but you can’t know. Yet, you’re making claims about the character, motives, and nature of people you know less well.
I understand the distinction. I'm waiting for you to provide some proof to support your rather extraordinary claim that there are NO good people. Answer the questions, please. Or let your silence serve as your answer.
Dan
The proof, Dan, is in Christ's words to the rich young man: There is no one good but God. It is simple, direct, unequivocal (live by His example).
In light of Craig's rather clear and precise comments, one might think you're purposely ignoring the point of what he is saying in order to defend people he hasn't attacked.
We all have a sin nature. Because of that nature, we are not good in the sense that God is good. God's nature is goodness (regardless of what a Dan Trabue thinks of His actions), and man's nature is sinful. Therefore, ontologically, no one is good. Indeed, motives and intentions compelling "good" actions and behaviors have absolutely nothing to do with this fact.
What we mean by "good" in reference to others, such as your wife (assuming you're not overstating her character being her husband and all), is always relative to other people, cultural notions of right behaviors, religious influences regarding right behaviors, etc. Christ, in His response to the rich young man, was not referring to such comparisons, but to the nature of man as a sinful creature...by nature. It can mean no other thing.
It's ironic that you bewail the reality of God's punishing of entire cities as something a "good" God wouldn't do, but can't handle the concept of God being so far above us in terms of goodness that we aren't worthy of daring to call ourselves good. It's as if you're purposely ignoring the point.
I’m sorry, I’ve never claimed that (according to your definition of choice), that there weren’t any “good” people.
I have said that humans were created “very good”, but have suffered from what Christians refer to as “The Fall”. Since that point, scripture clearly teaches that our nature (ontology) is in rebellion against God. Hence, when Jesus makes the simple declarative statement that “,,,no one is good...”, there is absolutely no reason to presume that “no one” somehow means “some people”, or that “good” means anything but “good”.
Unfortunately you’re so obsessed with me providing “proof” ,as if the plain meaning isn’t enough, of the position taken for the past 2000 years that you’ve ignored the fact that you haven’t offered “proof” of your new and novel interpretation. I guess bullying, deleting and lying are the order of the day, not providing proof.
It’s interesting that you keep that you keep trying to imply that “my silence” communicates something nefarious. In reality, my silence is due to your deletion of my on topic comments and you pretending that it’s me being silent rather than being silenced.
Fortunately, I’ve provided for the truth to be available, to counter your falsehoods.
I’m sorry, I’ve never claimed that (according to your definition of choice), that there weren’t any “good” people.
It is THE definition of Good. According to the English definition of Good, and the greek words in the NT that are translated Good, my wife and friends (and, no doubt, YOU) are good people. They do good things for good motives, according to the English definition of Good.
GIVEN THAT, are they Good, by the normal, standard, every day, regular, expected use of the word Good?
You say that you have not claimed that 'according to my definition of choice' (i.e. the standard, common English definition of the word) that there aren't any [scare quote] "good" people. So, make yourself clear:
Does that mean that, by NORMAL USAGE of the word Good, YES, THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?
Pretty straightforward question that you appear unwilling to be nailed down on.
I'm not asking you if there are "good" people (if you want a "superficial" definition of the word, good).
i'm not asking if there are people who do good things, but likely for bad motives. i'm asking:
Does that mean that, by NORMAL USAGE of the word Good, YES, THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?
The other, clarifying questions put to you that remain unanswered:
1. And since we're not "wired" to be good, then we are NOT good, even if a person may live an honest and hard-working life of giving, loving, sharing and selfless helpfulness... is that what you are trying to say?
2. In what sense, then, are they not Good?
3. What does NOT GOOD mean in that scenario?
4. Even if we have a "sinful nature," or a tendency to sin and be imperfect, why does that of necessity preclude someone from being Good?
I'm trying to help you flesh out your answer so that it is more meaningful. Please answer these questions.
Responses that do not answer these questions will be deleted, as I'm interested in the answers - direct, clear answers - to THESE questions.
Why not step up and be clear in what you mean? Your continued unwillingness to directly answer the questions does not reflect well on you.
Marshall...
The proof, Dan, is in Christ's words to the rich young man: There is no one good but God. It is simple, direct, unequivocal
If the question is, "did Jesus mean that literally or not?" then the "proof" is not merely repeating the words, as if that's an answer. That's circular reasoning and begging the question. Logical flaws.
We all have a sin nature. Because of that nature, we are not good in the sense that God is good.
That's a given. But the question being put to you two is (and now, please answer it directly and clearly if you want to comment here)...
A. So what? WHY does "not being as perfect and great as God" preclude one from being "Good?"
Good has a definition. My wife and friends MEET that definition of Good, as it is normally understood in the English language. On what basis, then, would one say they are NOT Good?
On the basis of "I have ANOTHER NON-STANDARD definition of good and only people who meet THAT definition are good..."?
That's not rational. That's not how words and language work. I can't suddenly declare that all conservatives are child molesters because I decided to change the definition of conservative to include that idea!
man's nature is sinful.
Therefore, ontologically, no one is good.
There's a difference between Good and Sinless. The definition of Good does NOT include Sinless. Understand?
Indeed, motives and intentions compelling "good" actions and behaviors have absolutely nothing to do with this fact.
Says who? You're just pulling stuff out of thin air!
And don't say, "Jesus said it!" because that's the question: Did Jesus mean that literally or figuratively?
Do you understand the notion of begging the question?
Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true.
IF the question is, "Did Jesus mean it literally when he said No one is Good?" then IF one responds, "We know he meant it literally because the text says, "No one is good..."
Begging the question. Fallacy. Stop it.
Because, clearly, Jesus absolutely must have meant something other than “No one is good”, when He said “No one is good”. On what planet is the starting assumption that Jesus meant something other than the plain meaning of the words he used.
Yes, that means that by your definition there are good people in the world.
1. People who are by nature fallen, sinful, ontologically “not good”, do engage in good works “with God”.
2. Ontological
3. That we all have a fallen, sinful, nature
4. Because, unless you have some magical solution to change human nature, we’re kind of stuck with the nature we have.
But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Of course, had you not chosen to delete multiple answers to your questions, I wouldn’t be answering them once again.
But, maybe that’s the point.
“I find great help in viewing the Bible as God's guidebook to joy--a divine prescription for how to be cured of all unhappiness, eventually. The medicine it prescribes is not always sweet, but the cure it brings is infinite and eternal joy at God's right hand (Psalm 16:11).“
I guess John Piper is just one more idiot who just doesn’t measure up the the power of Dan’s Reason.
One chance to not be a dick, Craig. Change what you just said...
Yes, that means that by your definition there are good people in the world.
Not MY definition. THE definition.
Otherwise, your answers are nonsense. I'm sorry if you don't recognize it. I'm sure you don't recognize it.
But they are.
The fact is, by the normal, common English definition of the word, Good, there ARE good people in the world.
IF you are suggesting that people you don't know who are observably good with good motives... that they are NOT good, as the word is normally understood, then you are just being ridiculous.
If you want to call yourself and your children and your wife/family/friends NOT good, go ahead. I'd suggest you not be such a dick about people you don't know. Really, I'd suggest you not be such a dick about yourself, as (other than this propensity to be argumentative), I bet you're a good man, as the word is normally used.
Don't bother saying anything else unless you're just wanting to admit the reality that YOU are the one considering people "not good" because YOU are using an alternative definition that is NOT the normal English usage of the word.
Or, if you'd like to address this, you can...
3. That we all have a fallen, sinful, nature
Who says that having a fallen sinful nature precludes us from being good? On what basis?
Of course, I recognize the answer to that is, The Calvinist human faith tradition believes it, on the basis of that's what they want to think. But not on any rational or demonstrable biblical basis. Just empty human tradition.
I recognize that reality, but do you recognize that reality?
Otherwise, no need to comment further on this thread.
4. Because, unless you have some magical solution to change human nature, we’re kind of stuck with the nature we have.
But please feel free to prove me wrong.
You are making the leap that, "IF you have a sinful nature... THEN you can't be good..." but that doesn't rationally follow. The definition of Good does not require perfection or sinlessness. YOU are making a leap and that is, demonstrably, where you are wrong.
Proven.
No need to comment unless you want to apologize for going on for something that you now recognize you were wrong about.
Just by way of a reminder:
Good: virtuous, right, commendable
a good person
good conduct
(2) : kind, benevolent
good intentions
Virtuous: having or experiencing virtue [virtue: conformity to a standard of right]
Morally excellent
I certainly know "good people" who are "kind and benevolent" who are observably "virtuous, right and commendable" and who behave in that way for reasons of selfless concern for others, especially those in need or distress.
Maybe the problem is that you are not that way, in your heart of hearts (and thus, I am wrong about you), and that you're projecting your own failings onto all others. Or maybe not. I am guessing not, given your life's work (assuming what you've said about yourself and your work is true... it's hard to say when someone is a self-confessed "not good" person...)
My guess would be that you are a good person and, thus, not prone to do what you consider "bragging..." and that you're just over-reacting to that modest notion by considering even your good actions and intentions to be "filthy rags," because you've been indoctrinated to take that sort of language literally by your human faith tradition.
Would that such faith traditions would embrace that sort of modesty before asserting as fact what is, in fact, their opinions.
~Dan
If it's true that one of us is being a dick, there likely are arguments for nominating each of us. Here's one gor you, Dan:
I prefer to copy/paste comments to which I wish to respond so that there is less confusion about why I said what I daid. I haven't figured out how to do it on my phone, so I must either painstakingly elaborate in long form with a one-fingered style of typing...as I'm doing now...or risk that the question or point to which I'm responding is more or less obvious. I'm now convinced it is most often less rather than more, and that puts me at a great disadvantage if I hope to stay current with the conversation. Case in point, and this goes to my case for you, Dan, being a dick....
When I referenced Christ's response yo the rich young man, it was not to prove that Christ meant literally that no one is good but God. It was in response to your question from4/16 @1:19PM:
"I'm waiting for you to provide some proof to support your rather extaordinary claim that there are NO good people."
It was then that I cited Christ's words for my proof, figuring...foolishly it seems...that Christ's declaritive statement would suffice, given that He is, after all, Christ, and isn't totally dim. Keep in mind, you yourself stated rather plainly that "good" and "perfect" mean two different things, and thus one should say "perfect" if one means "perfect". Why would you suppose Christ would do any differently?
Therefore, I in no way engaged in any begging the question fallacy, or any other fallacy for that matter.
The irony here, and what makes you a dick, is to insist that it is either of us that fails to understand YOUR words.
Note the many typos in my comments above. The more prevalent they seem to be, the more likely I'm using my phone. They're easier to miss until after hitting that publish button.
Marshall, I'm tired of explaining and re-explaining what you've misunderstood.
Good luck.
Suffice for you to hear that you are, indeed, question begging. I've told you, I've tried to help you figure it out. You haven't understood.
Good luck.
~Dan
And I've explained that the question to which I responded was not about the verse I cited in response. Perhaps you're thinking of a different question.
YOU said, "If the question is, 'did Jesus mean that literally or not". But that wasn't the question to which I responded. I even gave you the time and date of the question and typed out the question, too. No question begging on my part, and certainly not simply because you assert that I am.
Post a Comment